Christians are hypocrites, or, On selective observation

[Tiassa]

When your partner says she speaks the truth and never lies, she is not promulgating an ism.

Her own words describe her upholding honesty as a principle. Do we measure the words or the actions that defy them?

 

[spidergoat]

Most Buddhists are hypocrites because they don't fully adhere to the teachings of the Buddha. Monks keep on asking stupid questions, thus, they aren't true Buddhists.

Not so, part of the teachings of the Buddha include a mature attitude towards doubt and uncertainty, he recognized that one shouldn't follow any teaching blindly, but should examine the value of it for one's self. It isn't Buddhist to follow the teachings dogmatically, or to remain silent and not ask what's on your mind.

Where in Buddhism does it say that if you don't fully adhere to every teaching of the Buddha, then you aren't a Buddhist? Buddhists by definition are on the way to perfection. If they were already there, they wouldn't need Buddhism anymore, and they wouldn't be Buddhists.

 

[spidergoat]

So how can you talk about something you have no belief in?

Little green men with wings come out at night and rearrange my sock drawer. It's easy.

 

[water]

tiassa,

Her own words describe her upholding honesty as a principle. Do we measure the words or the actions that defy them?

I still don't think she is promulgating a particular philosophy (or an ism), as striving to speak the truth is common to most, if not all people.

But in general:
One thing is if a person fails do adhere to the philosophy they advocate, and *recognizes* this failing, takes responsibility for it and tries to make amends.
In such a case, the discrepancies between words and actions are recognized and evened out, and we cannot speak of hypocrisy.

If, however, said person does *not* recognize the failing and denies it, then we are probably dealing with a hypocrite or a pathological liar.
In such a case, the approach with honesty does not bear the desirable fruits.

Then, a new issue opens up: Should we lie to a liar?


* * *

spidergoat,

“ Most Buddhists are hypocrites because they don't fully adhere to the teachings of the Buddha. Monks keep on asking stupid questions, thus, they aren't true Buddhists. ”

Not so, part of the teachings of the Buddha include a mature attitude towards doubt and uncertainty, he recognized that one shouldn't follow any teaching blindly, but should examine the value of it for one's self. It isn't Buddhist to follow the teachings dogmatically, or to remain silent and not ask what's on your mind.

Where in Buddhism does it say that if you don't fully adhere to every teaching of the Buddha, then you aren't a Buddhist? Buddhists by definition are on the way to perfection. If they were already there, they wouldn't need Buddhism anymore, and they wouldn't be Buddhists.

Khm, of course. I thought my point in the opening post was clear enough -- the two questions below and the conclusion --, so I didn't find it necessary to say that the above listed examples of hypocrisy are absurd.

Judging by perfection of performance, anyone proclaiming to adhere to an ism can be stygmatized as a hypocrite. But if imperfection of performance makes Christians hypocrites, then we should be consistent and say how any imperfection of performance is hypocrisy -- in ANY ism.

By your own example, we can say:

Where in Christianity does it say that if you don't fully adhere to every teaching of the Bible, then you aren't a Christian? Christians by definition are on the way to perfection. If they were already there, they wouldn't need Christianity anymore, and they wouldn't be Christians.


* * *

“ So how can you talk about something you have no belief in? ”

Little green men with wings come out at night and rearrange my sock drawer. It's easy.

But you do not believe these little green men are REAL. You do not believe they exist the same way trees do.

You believe they are FICTIONAL, and you believe they exist as fictional entities. So, you do believe in them; it is just that you believe the mode of their existence to be fictional.

 

[§outh§tar]

There is no such thing as a fictional mode of existence.

 

[water]

If little green men exist in NO IMAGINABLE way, then how the hell can you talk about them at all?

 

[SnakeLord]

All atheists who ever utter the word "god" are hypocrites as they supposedly have no belief in God or gods, or claim that god doesn't exist. (So how can you talk about something you have no belief in?)

No disrespect, but that's utter nonsense.

I talk about Star Trek - that doesn't mean I believe in klingons or vulcans. I talk about LotR, but that does not mean I believe in hobbits, ents, elves or sauron.

god is just another character in another book, (a lot of books), and discussing about those characters does not in any way imply belief in their existence.

Now on a serious note: If I was Frodo I would have actually killed Golum instead of letting him bite my finger off. If I was Aragorn I would have just got my end away with Eowyn and Arowyn in a sex sandwich and ignored the few rogue orcs wandering the plains.

Etc etc etc yada yada yada.

 

[(Q)]

All atheists who ever utter the word "god" are hypocrites as they supposedly have no belief in God or gods, or claim that god doesn't exist. (So how can you talk about something you have no belief in?)

A bit silly. That's like saying anyone who utters the words, "Santa Claus, Unicorn, Dragon, Tooth Fairy" MUST believe in them.

You'll have to come up with a better one than that.